Get Token by Address

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or response size. For a tool with rich annotations, the description should still add context like 'returns metadata from on-chain sources' or 'may not include all tokens'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include the network parameter hint without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is too brief to provide complete context for an AI agent. It does not mention which token types are supported (e.g., ERC20, BEP20), what data fields to expect, or how the tool relates to sibling tools like 'crypto.dex.pools' or 'crypto.market.overview'. This shortfall is significant in a server with many crypto-related tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already describes them adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples, formatting rules, or default behavior (e.g., what happens if network is omitted). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get token info by contract address' clearly states the action (get), resource (token info), and the primary parameter (contract address). It distinguishes from siblings like 'crypto.coin.detail' which likely focuses on coins rather than tokens. However, it could be more precise about what 'token info' includes (e.g., name, symbol, decimals) to fully differentiate from other crypto tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crypto.coin.detail' or 'crypto.price.current'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context (e.g., supported blockchain networks beyond the schema enum). The schema's enum provides network options but the description fails to guide the agent on appropriate selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.